[emailking]

Koyaanisqatsi is right.

P(B|A) doesn't assume A must cause B, even if that's how one usually thinks about this rule. It could cause it, or it might not cause it.

Let C = B happens as caused by A

If B must be caused by A, then P(C) = P(B|A). But if B doesn't have to be caused by A then P(C) < P(B|A). B can be happening irrespective of A.

There aren't fundamentally different rules for independent and dependent events. It's just that if A and B are independent then P(B|A) = P(B) and so P(A and B) reduces to P(A)*P(B)

Note P(A and B) = P(B)*P(A|B) in addition to P(A)*P(B|A). Doesn't matter which causes which, if any.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', 'K')oyaanisqatsi is right.

P(B|A) doesn't assume A must cause B, even if that's how one usually thinks about this rule. It could cause it, or it might not cause it.

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', 'K')oyaanisqatsi is right.

P(B|A) doesn't assume A must cause B, even if that's how one usually thinks about this rule. It could cause it, or it might not cause it.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Koyaanisqatsi', '
')And you posted one post here and in the second post you bailed.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', 'K')oyaanisqatsi is right.

P(B|A) doesn't assume A must cause B, even if that's how one usually thinks about this rule. It could cause it, or it might not cause it.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', 'K')oyaanisqatsi is right.

P(B|A) doesn't assume A must cause B, even if that's how one usually thinks about this rule. It could cause it, or it might not cause it.

Let C = B happens as caused by A

If B must be caused by A, then P(C) = P(B|A). But if B doesn't have to be caused by A then P(C) < P(B|A). B can be happening irrespective of A.

There aren't fundamentally different rules for independent and dependent events. It's just that if A and B are independent then P(B|A) = P(B) and so P(A and B) reduces to P(A)*P(B)

Note P(A and B) = P(B)*P(A|B) in addition to P(A)*P(B|A). Doesn't matter which causes which, if any.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Koyaanisqatsi', 'A')s I said, even if you say you meant both=P(B|A), then the statement doesn't map onto my argument about the 9/11 probabilities, so your claim that this invalidates the argument is itself invalid. I would think that someone who genuinely wants to discover the truth would follow an argument to its logical conclusion, but you clearly aren't interested in the truth.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Koyaanisqatsi', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here aren't fundamentally different rules for independent and dependent events. It's just that if A and B are independent then P(B|A) = P(B) and so P(A and B) reduces to P(A)*P(B)

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Koyaanisqatsi', '
')And as usual JBeckton ignores the substance of the post. Dodge and weave!

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')Therefore if the events are NOT independent (such as breaking you leg AND falling down the stairs) then you can NOT reduce P(A and B) to P(A)*P(B).

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')Therefore if the events are NOT independent (such as breaking you leg AND falling down the stairs) then you can NOT reduce P(A and B) to P(A)*P(B).

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')Therefore if the events are NOT independent (such as breaking you leg AND falling down the stairs) then you can NOT reduce P(A and B) to P(A)*P(B).

[Koyaanisqatsi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Koyaanisqatsi', '
')And as usual JBeckton ignores the substance of the post. Dodge and weave!

[Koyaanisqatsi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')My contention is and always has been:

P(A)=WTC 7 is on fire
P(B)=WTC collapses

P(A and B) is not P(A) * P(B), rather P(A)*P(B|A)

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Koyaanisqatsi', '
') You are incorrect; the probability of a collapse increases exponentially after the fire has started because the events are not independent. Do you really not see this?

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')
Yes, the probability of collapse increases after the building is set on fire, therefore:

P(B) does not equal P(B|A)

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'P')erhaps you are refering to a point of contention between he and Carlhole. Forgive me but I tend to skim through Carlhole's posts at this point....

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')
Yes, the probability of collapse increases after the building is set on fire, therefore:

P(B) does not equal P(B|A)

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'P')erhaps you are refering to a point of contention between he and Carlhole. Forgive me but I tend to skim through Carlhole's posts at this point....

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'P')erhaps you are refering to a point of contention between he and Carlhole. Forgive me but I tend to skim through Carlhole's posts at this point....